Measuring Up

Air travel is all about taking us out of our comfort zone…

As I mindlessly moved through the airport onto my flights during another business trip this week, something  new occurred to me. I realized that the whole flying experience has been turned into an ordeal that truly takes adults out of their comfort zone. On top of that, it makes us (or at least me) feel like a school kid who is scared that the strict teacher is about to rap my knuckles with a big ruler.

I’ll explain. To begin with, think about what typically happens as you go through the security line in each airport. It’s mighty stressful. I realize that it’s needed, but the process is identical each time. As quickly as possible, you whip off shoes, belt, coat, anything metal and throw it all into 3-4 bins, all the while the people in back of you are politely pushing and edging you forward. God forbid you aren’t quick enough in dislodging your materials into these bins. Someone jumps in front of you and that creates more anxiety. Of course, throughout this process, the security people are herding each one of us like cattle going to market to get through the line and walk under the x-ray post.

No time to take a deep breath at that point though. Because, just as quickly, you’re expected to grab all items you have on the belt coming out of the other end, or the people’s stuff behind yours will pile right on top. I have to believe it would be really funny for someone to be a fly on the security wall and watch us poor travelers hopping on one foot to get a shoe on, while simultaneously trying to put our lap top back in a briefcase and also slip that belt back on.

I find myself tense, stressed out and needing a vacation after experiencing the security line more than once in a day.

Then, after a few hours of waiting and finally piling on to the plane, the next experience typically happens which makes me feel like a child. When those airplane doors close, flight attendants, who are actually customer service representatives, instantly transform into your worst disciplinarian teacher. And, each of us becomes nothing more than a child forced to follow every single directive and rule. Again, I understand why many of these rules are in place, but it just strikes me as a little zany as to how adult passengers lose all control during the experience.

For example, ever try to get a little more use out of your Blackberry before taking off? I find myself becoming so sneaky just to hide the PDA from any possible flight attendant who could be coming up in front of me, or even scarier… from behind.  I typically place the Blackberry between two magazines so that it appears that I’m reading and then sneak a few peaks and write some last minute emails before we ever take off. Getting caught is a brutal experience though. The look isn’t something I’ve seen since my mother used to catch me (after the fact) holding parties in our house (as a teenager) when my parents traveled.

Sometimes it’s even the little things that make you feel just as bad though- How about trying to lower your seat just a tad before take off because when it is upright, it’s just so comfortable to the back? I’ve gotten that glare and have been reprimanded on more than one occasion. God forbid ones briefcase isn’t stowed perfectly under the seat. The resulting lecture from Sister Mary Flight Attendant is the same.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that all of these aspects of flying actually make the experience dreadful. I can take all the waiting around flight delays. But, no one wants to be taken out of their comfort zone so often and the way that makes adults feel like children. Not much anyone can do about it and I understand why the rules are what they are. But, it doesn’t mean that I’ll ever like it.

Selling to the CEO

That doesn't happen all too often for agency executives. Yes, we meet with CEOs and often present to them.  But, typically our plans, programs and campaigns are thoroughly vetted and approved by their communications and marketing heads well before such a greeting ever takes place.

So, when I have an opportunity to spend any significant time and find out what makes a Fortune 500 CEO tick, I really try to take full advantage of it.

And, just the other day this happened. One of our newer clients is a start up. The company's founder and CEO just recently spent a number of years running a $5 billion financial services company (which we also represented.)

Now, with his new enterprise in startup mode, we found ourselves trading knowledge in a way that I never thought would happen. He's just learning to be an entrepreneur for the first time and is anxious to make the right decisions out of the gate (I guess from my mistakes.) And, I'm extremely interested in hearing his views on what in my little world of communications, PR and marketing actually matters to the leader of a large, international company.

Boy, did I get an earful that I won't forget anytime soon.

Let's start with the topic of something near and dear to my heart – measurement. This client is a financial/ operations guy. Most people assume that number crunchers always want everything measured. More to the point, the belief is that they need to see what we call ROI (return on investment). Did a $100 spent on PR bring back $200 in value?

Not surprisingly, he confirmed that this is important. However, he threw out a big but..."But, too many communicators are measuring things that I don't care about. And, most of them feel they have to show a return so much quicker than is realistic. So, the result is that costly measurement programs, that offer me very little insight into whether a campaign actually could work, are presented to me.  As a result, we waste money and I lose respect for them."

He also thinks it’s fascinating that communicators are typically very artful in presenting ideas and campaigns. Yet, they fumble all over themselves with ugly, much too lengthy PowerPoint metrics presentations. These boring meetings provide way too much analytical information, yet very little prescriptive strategies into how the program can be improved. That is one of his big pet peeves.

His next topic for me was a good one. He referred to it as, "Stop squeezing your square peg into my round hole."

That means much of his experience with professional marketers is based on them pushing (or selling) in services, products, disciplines and even campaigns that just don't really fit into his business needs. The problem is that many communicators think alike and try to solve business challenges with the same tool from the overly used tool box rather than dig extra deep into the business issue at hand and create a new tool that really has a chance to succeed.

He cited as an over simplified example the ad agency executive (who used to work for him) who thinks that to penetrate deep into consumer markets, a full blown ad campaign is a must. What he never really understood is that the trust issues (or lack thereof) within his particular industry are so egregious, that commercial messages are largely unbelievable and can work against a company if not handled correctly.

I had the fortune of asking a number of other topical questions. And, his responses were equally hard hitting (and most definitely welcomed.)

I hope to have many more discussions like this in the near future. This type of one-on-one market research is really invaluable. It allows agency executives to "stop drinking their own Kool-Aid" and conduct real account planning based on what the ultimate client really cares about. Because nothing else really matters.

You really do get what you've paid for....

This is the oldest cliché. And, call me naïve. But, I’m really not sure why it's taken me so long to believe that it's almost always true. In this case, it has to do with buying the annoying, yet necessary product called car insurance.

Like most consumers living though this recession, I've tried to be smarter about personal finances and have cut costs over the last year. Considering I rarely ever have an insurance claim with any of our family cars, finding a carrier with a cheaper policy seemed like the natural thing to do. I should preface this story by stating that I've always had pretty high end insurance (from Chubb.) The service was always top of the line and the few claims that I submitted (I think two over last 10 years) were handled in a first class way. The issue at hand was simply how expensive it was to insure three cars on a Chubb policy.

So, I went comparison shopping. That's an interesting experience. When price becomes the main consideration in buying this product, it's pretty easy to understand why companies like Progressive and Geico are key players in this ball game. With very little change in my deductable and general coverage, very friendly customer service representatives on the phone, and close to $800 per six month period (or double that per year) savings, Progressive made my choice to switch very easy.

So, we cancelled our Chubb policy and handed everything over to this low cost provider. And, I felt pretty darn good.

Then, the trouble began. To obtain Progressive's low cost, every customer has to install this "thingamajig" (that's what I call it) under the dashboard of each car. Basically, it's a monitor that allows the insurer to become "big brother-like" to see how fast you are driving and what types of turns you are making. Theoretically, I had no problem with this. But, these thingamajigs are difficult to snap into the cars and they always seem to keep falling out. It started to become a real hassle when the one in my car fell out every week and Progressive started sending me email after email pleading with me to put them back in. My point in all this: Progressive's initial friendly customer service wasn't all that customer centric after all and caused me to waste a lot of time dealing with an issue that I should never have had to think about.

Next issue: Someone smacked my wife's car. It wasn't too bad, except the front right bumper/side was smashed in. My wife went through the process of filing a claim. This meant taking the car to the one, middle-of-no-where garage that Progressive deals with and getting a quote on how much it would cost to fix. What we found out is that the garage basically offers up a low ball quote on what Progressive will pay to fix it, not what the actual cost will be to do it right. There was a $700 gap between those two variables. That really annoyed me. In the end, we simply sucked it up, went to the Honda dealership and paid for them to do it the right way. Now, I was starting to experience firsthand how a low cost provider could make real margins.

The final straw that broke my camel's back was when the six month initial insurance coverage period was over. I don't have a lot of time to continually search for new insurance providers, so even though I wasn't feeling good about Progressive, canceling my policy wasn't an option yet. That was until they sent me a new quote for the same coverage. It was almost $600 higher... for no real reason. I called them to inquire why and received nothing substantial for why the price was so much higher. That's when it became clear to me that this initial cost was really a way to reel me into their world. Then, when they had me, they could change everything and make some real money.

Many people rave about Progressive. Clearly, I will never be one of them. But, I'm not sure that I have any real lingering negativity towards the company because of my experience (although I am changing carriers.) Instead, I've looked in the mirror and hopefully have learned enough to not be fooled again to think that cheaper could be better (or at least just as good.) Whether it be around insurance, healthcare, consumer products or even PR services, you get what you pay for in life. If you decide to go really cheap, then you better reset your expectations on what the outcome will be.

The pot calling the kettle black

Ever notice how many famous (or highly regarded) public figures who go through scandals (or are disgraced) rehabilitate their image only to jump right back into the spotlight a few years later? I’ve always been intrigued with the ease that most gain acceptance. And, although their lapses aren’t forgotten… typically they are forgiven.

Don’t get me wrong. In many cases, these former politicians, dignitaries or celebrities come back even stronger and have every right to do so because their new found visibility has little to do with past crimes or indiscretions. One case in point is Martha Stewart. Martha went to jail for insider trading (actually the official crime was lying to the government.) With her jail term served, those who cherished Martha’s wise home living advice and tips before, accepted her quite affectionately again by enthusiastically watching her shows, reading her magazines and books and maintaining their overall fan status.

Take a look at Eliot Spitzer and we see a completely different scenario, albeit an interesting storyline. It wasn’t so long ago that the former Governor of New York went through this state’s largest political scandal in recent history when the news broke that he was caught red handed frolicking with an expensive call girl. The governor quickly resigned from office and then created his own Richard Nixon-like, self exile scenario. We thought that would be the last of Mr. Spitzer, until 18 months later when he appeared on many talk shows to offer his very relevant commentary on the plummeting financial markets and Wall Street’s blame in the economic disaster that had resulted. Yes, people were shocked to see the disgraced governor in the spotlight again. Some were even outraged. Yet, in the end, this was most likely the smartest move Mr. Spitzer could have made to rehabilitate his image because the only positive and credible piece of his reputation that still existed was forged over a 12 year period as having an Elliot Ness approach to fighting Wall Street corruption and greed by standing up for all those ‘little people’ who needed to be protected.    

Then, there exists a few hypocrisies that I simply don’t understand. These include real life examples of larger than life successful people who fell from grace because of some misdeed, or simply because their success was built on a lie. Yet, somehow, they managed to come back in the most credible and public way to provide counsel or advice on the very same issues or manners that caused the controversy in the first place. One such example I’m thinking of is the former dot.com super star analyst Henry Blodget.

Do you remember Henry? I certainly do. Think back to 1998 or 1999. This young buck was seen as a God within the investment/technology community for his outlandish Internet investment picks. At that time he worked at Merrill Lynch and instantly reached star status after predicting that Amazon would rise to become a $400 stock (which it actually did.) Every technology or Internet company wanted to get on the radar screen of young Henry after that. He was paid at the highest Wall Street levels, treated like a rock star in all public circles and seen as a new sage on Wall Street. This all worked beautifully well until the Internet bubble busted and it was later found out that Henry and others from Merrill’s research/analyst department were conducting questionable activities within the firm.  He was sharing information (and more importantly) helping Merrill’s investment banking customers prosper by writing favorable financial reports on questionable business models. The Wall Street Chinese Wall relationship between research and investment banking was torn down because Henry (and others) helped Merrill make lots of money through these investment banking relationships at the expense of individual investors. In return, top analysts like Henry also received special early investment considerations into a number of the firm’s hot IPOs.

In the end, Henry’s picks all went south and his conflicted relationship within Merrill caused then New York State Attorney General to investigate him. Though he wasn’t ever convicted of anything, Henry was later barred from the securities industry and paid a fine of $2 million.

That’s why it makes no sense to me and truly comes across as the ultimate hypocrisy when I see that Henry is a top anchor and host on “Tech Ticker,” a heavily watched Internet news segment which dissects and analyzes the latest developments on Wall Street and within the technology world. I’ve watched these videos for over a year. While they are entertaining, it’s absurd that Henry actually plays the ‘heavy,’ watchdog role at times by beating up Wall Street executives and their companies for having ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

I’m not sure how Henry could be seen as credible by any audience on this topic based on a history laced with suspect decisions himself. Talk about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black…

All the news that isn't fit to be relevant

Check out this photo. You see it, and, of course, you're led to believe that because these two Phillies are high fiving, their team won the World Series game on Saturday night. Right?

Not so. That high five took place in the early innings when the Phillies advanced to take a 2-0 lead. In the end, the Yanks caught up and won the game. Too bad the New York Times sports writer and photographer had probably already gone to bed, though. If someone had stayed to report the full game, we might be viewing a different photo.

This is just bad journalism. I rarely ever say or write this about The New York Times. But, it's Sports section has always been a cut below standard. Although there is some small print below the photo which tells the reader to go to NYTimes.com for the latest news. No reader wants to be unintentionally misled about the game results (a pretty important game) with the largest photo on the front page.

For years, The Times advertised that it had the best sports section around. What a crock that is. Yes, the articles are well written and the section does provide the reader with lots of important statistics and data. But, one area it always failed miserably in is providing the most recent, relevant news, like other rival papers do. And, I for one, have always had a problem with that.

In this case, it would have simply been better to not put any World Series photo front and center on the cover page. At least it wouldn't be wrong.

I never understood why this paper can't find a way to report any game played late at night in the next morning's paper. I guess with shrinking staffs and resources, this reality will never change. That's life. I just hope The Times understands when news isn't reported the next morning, it isn't really news at all.

Because of credible digital communications, I never looked “back”

Every few months my aching lower back acts up again. Like many, I’ve tried most therapies, from acupuncture  to intense physical therapy to regular chiropractor sessions. All of these have helped in making my back feel whole again for 4-8 month periods. But unfortunately, none gave any type of real lasting powers.

Ask 10 different people for advice on back therapies and you’ll get 10 different answers. Go on the internet looking for solutions and you’ll only find yourself tired, frustrated and more confused about the myriad of “guaranteed” procedures and doctors who can supposedly “cure” your pain. I was just about ready to end my Internet Google search, when this series of videos hit my screen.

; ;

In case you don’t have the time or desire to watch it, Dr. Howard Goodman (a back physician and chiropractor) discusses how something called spinal decompression can possibly help those who have inflammation or herniated discs (I have the former). What caught my eye about this series of videos (and kept me watching) is the simple, easy to understand and credible manner with which this specialist comes across. Instead of guaranteeing any type of magic solution, or trying to impress me with high brow MD knowledge, Dr. Goodman calmly explains to me what decompression is and how it can really help SOME patients (but not everyone.) He discusses it in the context of an alternative to surgery and then walks the viewer through symptoms that a candidate would have (and why.) Lastly, in layman’s terms, he describes the end benefit that this procedure can accomplish during a 6-8 week therapy timetable. I also like the fact that the entire intro video is only three minutes in length. (That’s plenty of time to explain to me the basics.) All the videos can be accessed from YouTube as well.

There’s nothing new about creating YouTube videos to educate and promote products, services and thought leadership. I just think that many in the medical field haven’t really figured out how to leverage this powerful Internet tool to effectively communicate credibly with target consumer audiences. With so many different medical “solutions” continually pushed to us, it’s incredibly hard to know which one is believable and really fits the problem at hand, or just pure snake oil (and there are quite of a few of those on the Internet these days.) So, guarantees and/or cocky promotions about medical pedigrees and language that I don’t understand are sure fire turnoffs for me.

After watching this video, I went to the Web site of New York Rehabilitation Center (which luckily happens to be physically located a block away from where I work,) and was further educated about the way decompression could really work for me. I also read articles (posted on the site) and did my own analysis on the doctors there to feel comfortable that everything seemed legitimate. In many ways, Dr. Goodman and his staff did everything right to successfully create a credible social media offering. The large amount of positive reviews about this video certainly helps to reinforce that. I think that others in the medical field should take notice.

Will this work for me? That’s a good question. I’m on to my 5th decompression appointment and the old back is actually starting to feel better. But, only time (6-8 weeks) will tell. I’ll be sure to report back to you how I’m feeling then.

Is there such a thing as a “dumb city?”

I know this post may come across as cruel. But, yesterday’s article about Atlantic City’s “death spiral” has me truly wondering whether the answer is… yes.

I’ve been around Atlantic City (AC) for the last 25 years or so (living in NYC and New Jersey.) And, over this time period, I’ve watched this once promising gambling resort destination deteriorate to become nothing more than a cesspool at the sea. Think about it. That really isn’t an easy thing for any town, municipality or city to achieve when so much of its prime real estate lays on miles and miles of truly beautiful beach front property. Nothing is certain in life. But, any real estate destination that offers ocean views and sandy beaches should have among the best chances of flourishing. Unfortunately, almost since its inception, this city of false hope has been mismanaged, misappropriated and misguided by so many inept politicians, business executives, promoters and municipal guardians who promised prosperity and instead brought nothing but shame.

That’s why this article, entitled, “Can Atlantic City Raise the Stakes?” makes me twinge.  This city had every opportunity and expectation of becoming the Las Vegas of the East Coast (or even bigger.) It’s hard to believe that after so much colossal failure, once again there are a few believers out there who are doubling down on their bet that Atlantic City can make a comeback.  The old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” is what comes to mind here.

Here’s my question: After how many blunders can someone (or in this case someplace) officially be labeled dumb? Seriously. The Mob first owned Atlantic City in the early days and boy did it start with a big bang. (And I don’t mean gun shots.) Those early casinos on the boardwalk (like Resorts) were so jammed back, that tourists would wait hours to see a show or have a chance to hit a casino table.

The way I see it (though) is that even when the Mob left, wide scale corruption never stopped. And through all of this, Atlantic City continues to make the worst type of decisions. Here are a few of them:

• What happened to gentrification? We’ve probably read about 10 plans over the last 30 years to root out all the inner city crime and turn the bad part of Atlantic City (that’s about 90 percent of it) into middle class, or at least more respectable neighborhoods. This city is too far gone for that to happen now. Allowing all the bad in this city to grow and fester out of control has certainly been the major reason behind its downfall.
• Who would create casinos on the beach and not take advantage of them? I just can’t figure that one out. These casinos could have created truly sustainable properties that wouldn’t  live and die on pure gambling (all subject to economic highs and lows in our economy) if they had the foresight to build these beaches into major consumer destinations (i.e. maximize their beaches as full swimming/boating/drinking resorts.) Walk along a typical AC casino boardwalk and see how poorly the beaches are actually utilized to make money.
• The Indian Tribes just left them in the dust. First it started in Connecticut (Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun) and then it exploded with tribes opening up casinos in PA, NY State and now Delaware. AC casino operatives had their heads buried in the sand trying to find a way out of their junk bond miseries, while their savvy and nimble upstart competitors moved swiftly to offer a better entertainment product that is much closer to where they live. This had helped to really put the nail in AC’s coffin.
• Current modernization is still flawed. I went to Caesars Casino this summer for a night of dinner and gambling. On the one hand, it was nice to see how millions of $$$ have been pumped into this property to keep it afloat. (A new mall with restaurants and shops has been developed.) Unfortunately, the entire décor is designed in an 80s feel and that is just very strange. From the music, to the shops, to even the architectural design, if felt like we were being transported back in time. I’m just not sure why anyone would find that appealing.

Maybe there’s something in the water they drink  near and within Atlantic City, but I firmly believe that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” when it comes to the clarity by which some people think and make decisions in that neck of the woods. As a case in point, about 15 years ago one of the first prospects that called upon Peppercom was something called The Atlantic City Golf Association. Steve and I were excited because this qualified lead is an association that managed all the beautiful golf courses in the greater Atlantic City area and its Board was looking for a small, strategic firm to help immediately.

The first problem was that most target consumers/business people didn’t even know these golf resorts existed. The bigger challenge was that they were looking for a new way to position the association to compete with really “hot” golf vacation destinations such as Myrtle Beach and South Florida.

This looked like the perfect early client opportunity for us. We could really help them articulate a new brand positioning that would be both exciting and real and then our little firm could promote the heck out of these picturesque golf courses. That was until we had our last meeting (before being hired) when two of the association Board members were adamant that they knew exactly what the new positioning should be. Not wanting to sound like know-it-alls, we listened… and then we laughed… and then we realized it wasn’t a joke.

They wanted to position their golf courses as, “The Perfect Place to Golf ALL YEAR ROUND.”

We tried to explain to the powers at large that this wasn’t actually true. It isn’t possible to golf on these courses in the middle of January or February when six inches of snow are on the ground. But, they wouldn’t listen.  Nope, they were adamant that technically golfing is still possible then (maybe it’s called frozen golf?) and they wanted to reposition themselves in this way to compete with the warmer climate destinations. Then they curtly said that we could take this or leave them. So, we did just that… we left them.

After that experience, I realized that sometimes people in life just make very little sense. And, there’s nothing you can do to change their perspective or how they go about making business decisions. Are they dumb? Well, you’ve read my story. So, now I’ll let you be the judge of that.

One size fits none

Our crack PepperDigital team conducted a very interesting study on social media trends across the global spectrum. They are currently writing a 12-part blog series based on analyzing a host of interesting findings.

Not surprisingly, one of the core insights that was proven (though) shows how different cultures, crossing different countries utilize the Web and communicate/socialize much differently from each other. Marketers everywhere need to pay attention because overall campaigns, product introductions and/or relationship building clearly needs to be tailor made and implemented uniquely for each and every demographic and country/region that is targeted.

Our PepperDigital team offers a number of examples of how this is acutely true. I can think of one specific example that recently happened with a former client (not to be named) in which the senior executive in charge wanted to gain more attention for a blog post he had written on key business ethics principles. He asked us to generate a lot of international exposure among online communities where his customer base (senior HR managers) socialize and go to for thought leadership content. This all sounded great except that these principles were very US-centric and although they were smart and strategic, we believed they wouldn’t resonate with target audiences in some parts of Europe and Asia.

Although we pushed back, this former client was adamant about making this happen. So, we reluctantly backed down. Of course, the result was many comments on his post. About half were positive (from US business managers) and the rest chose to negatively dig into the very fact that these comments didn’t take into account social business norms in other key countries (like the EU). Not what our former client wanted.

If you’re interested in this topic, please take a few minutes and check out PepperDigital’s 12 different forthcoming posts. I think you’ll find them interesting.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big  cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits,  is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV?  I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

If A Client Asks For The Moon…

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

MeasuringUP has recounted lessons from 'Mad Men' we can take into the office on Monday mornings.  This past  week’s episode was no different (SPOILER ALERT for those DVR junkies out there).  A long-nurtured relationship between Don Draper and Conrad Hilton shockingly unraveled in one fell swoop during a formal agency pitch.  Don was flabbergasted.  So was Lili, my wife, who watches Mad Men as religiously as I do.  Muttering screenwriting inconsistencies, she fell asleep.  I didn’t.

Many years ago I had a jewel of a client – a national restaurant chain that laid out an aggressive plan to evolve into a lifestyle brand.  For an account person the assignment was exciting.  And my rapport with their marketing director seemed impenetrable.  We were in similar places professionally.  She just moved to a city from which I relocated.  The passion between our two respective companies was mutual.  I could do no wrong.  It was like, well, walking on the moon (reference to the 'Mad Men' subplot herein). 

She sent me a deck late one afternoon summarizing her new strategy and asked for my feedback.  I stayed until the wee hours of the morning analyzing each page thoroughly, documenting (many) areas where I felt she was misdirected, and sent a comprehensive response long after midnight which was constructive and kind but utterly candid.  Without being self-aggrandizing, I was really happy with my work.

The response e-mail hit me at 8 am the following morning. “You don’t understand our business.  You don’t see what I’m trying to accomplish.  You clearly haven’t read the materials I have sent to you.  I am concerned about this agency relationship.”  I was dumbfounded.  Our analysis was great.

Following the #1 rule of delivering bad news quickly, I brought the e-mail to a senior manager, along with my analysis.  He spent 60 seconds looking at everything.  “You did not listen to her,” she said.  “You brought no one else into this.  You did not give her what she asked for.  And she may fire us.”  A few months later, she did.

During this season of 'Mad Men' Don Draper was courted by Conrad Hilton.  Meetings at the Waldorf.  Trips to Italy.  Drinks at all hours of the night.  Don’s ego inflated.  Whose wouldn’t?  Yet during this courtship, Mr. Hilton made his own professional style very clear.  He was a micromanager.  He was a control freak.  And when he asked anyone for anything, no room for challenge existed.  Don witnessed that across many contexts.  So when Conrad reviewed the boards for his brand, he asked why Sterling Cooper didn’t take Hilton to the moon.  That’s what he asked Don Draper to deliver in earlier meetings.  So what did Don do?  Don still pushed his work that didn’t include the moon.  Don made a patronizing comment about incorporating the moon into an already existing board.  The new business opportunity ended then and there – and the same thing would happen today.

Mistake #1:  Don Draper allowed strong rapport to make him think he could do no wrong.  Mistake #2:  Don plunged into this new business pitch by himself, as if he were a one-person show, without ever thinking that maybe the smart people around him could have helped digest Conrad’s wants and needs during the meetings and drinks preceding the pitch.  Mistake #3:  Don heard a client ask for the moon and didn’t come close to responding – in neither strategy nor creative.  Mistake #4:  Don took Conrad’s legitimate, and polite, questions about where the moon concept was, and Don (rather than apologizing, retrenching, or opening up a dialogue) grew defensive and told Conrad that “this was a great campaign.”  As if Hilton was already Don’s brand.  Any prospective client would get up and leave.  Mine did.

With regret, I believe many of the inappropriate situations that take place on 'Mad Men' remain part of our current culture, perhaps on a more subdued level.  Don’s failure to win this enormous client opportunity – despite his obvious depth of talent and hunger for new business – happens all the time.  Talent and hunger are easily replicated.  Engaging a team to listen to client needs and wants is a special skill but no less important.  Regardless of expertise area, marketing service firms must remember that.